Joint replacement is one of the most common and successful operations in modern orthopaedic surgery. It consists of replacing painful, arthritic, worn or diseased parts of a joint with artificial surfaces shaped in such a way as to allow joint movement. Osteoarthritis is a common diagnosis leading to joint replacement. Such procedures are a last resort treatment as they are highly invasive and require substantial periods of recovery. Total joint replacement, also known as total joint arthroplasty, is a procedure in which all articular surfaces at a joint are replaced. This contrasts with hemiarthroplasty (half arthroplasty) in which only one bone's articular surface at a joint is replaced and unincompartmental arthroplasty in which the articular surfaces of only one of multiple compartments at a joint (such as the surfaces of the thigh and shin bones on just the inner side or just the outer side at the knee) are replaced. Arthroplasty as a general term, is an orthopaedic procedure which surgically alters the natural joint in some way. This includes procedures in which the arthritic or dysfunctional joint surface is replaced with something else, procedures which are undertaken to reshape or realigning the joint by osteotomy or some other procedure. As with joint replacement, these other arthroplasty procedures are also characterized by relatively long recovery times and their highly invasive procedures. A previously popular form of arthroplasty was interpositional arthroplasty in which the joint was surgically altered by insertion of some other tissue like skin, muscle or tendon within the articular space to keep inflammatory surfaces apart. Another previously done arthroplasty was excisional arthroplasty in which articular surfaces were removed leaving scar tissue to fill in the gap. Among other types of arthroplasty are resection(al) arthroplasty, resurfacing arthroplasty, mold arthroplasty, cup arthroplasty, silicone replacement arthroplasty, and osteotomy to affect joint alignment or restore or modify joint congruity. When it is successful, arthroplasty results in new joint surfaces which serve the same function in the joint as did the surfaces that were removed. Any chodrocytes (cells that control the creation and maintenance of articular joint surfaces), however, are either removed as part of the arthroplasty, or left to contend with the resulting joint anatomy. Because of this, none of these currently available therapies are chondro-protective.
A widely-applied type of osteotomy is one in which bones are surgically cut to improve alignment. A misalignment due to injury or disease in a joint relative to the direction of load can result in an imbalance of forces and pain in the affected joint. The goal of osteotomy is to surgically re-align the bones at a joint and thereby relieve pain by equalizing forces across the joint. This can also increase the lifespan of the joint. When addressing osteoarthritis in the knee joint, this procedure involves surgical re-alignment of the joint by cutting and reattaching part of one of the bones at the knee to change the joint alignment, and this procedure is often used in younger, more active or heavier patients. Most often, high tibial osteotomy (HTO) (the surgical re-alignment of the upper end of the shin bone (tibia) to address knee malalignment) is the osteotomy procedure done to address osteoarthritis and it often results in a decrease in pain and improved function. However, HTO does not address ligamentous instability—only mechanical alignment. HTO is associated with good early results, but results deteriorate over time.
Other approaches to treating osteoarthritis involve an analysis of loads which exist at a joint. Both cartilage and bone are living tissues that respond and adapt to the loads they experience. Within a nominal range of loading, bone and cartilage remain healthy and viable. If the load falls below the nominal range for extended periods of time, bone and cartilage can become softer and weaker (atrophy). If the load rises above the nominal level for extended periods of time, bone can become stiffer and stronger (hypertrophy). Finally, if the load rises too high, then abrupt failure of bone, cartilage and other tissues can result. Accordingly, it has been concluded that the treatment of osteoarthritis and other bone and cartilage conditions is severely hampered when a surgeon is not able to precisely control and prescribe the levels of joint load. Furthermore, bone healing research has shown that some mechanical stimulation can enhance the healing response and it is likely that the optimum regime for a cartilage/bone graft or construct will involve different levels of load over time, e.g. during a particular treatment schedule. Thus, there is a need for devices which facilitate the control of load on a joint undergoing treatment or therapy, to thereby enable use of the joint within a healthy loading zone.
Certain other approaches to treating osteoarthritis contemplate external devices such as braces or fixators which attempt to control the motion of the bones at a joint or apply cross-loads at a joint to shift load from one side of the joint to the other. A number of these approaches have had some success in alleviating pain but have ultimately been unsuccessful due to lack of patient compliance or the inability of the devices to facilitate and support the natural motion and function of the diseased joint. The loads acting at any given joint and the motions of the bones at that joint are unique to the body that the joint is a part of. For this reason, any proposed treatment based on those loads and motions must account for this variability to be universally successful. The mechanical approaches to treating osteoarthritis have not taken this into account and have consequently had limited success.
Prior approaches to treating osteoarthritis have also failed to account for all of the basic functions of the various structures of a joint in combination with its unique movement. In addition to addressing the loads and motions at a joint, an ultimately successful approach must also acknowledge the dampening and energy absorption functions of the anatomy, and be implantable via a minimally invasive technique. Prior devices designed to reduce the load transferred by the natural joint typically incorporate relatively rigid constructs that are incompressible. Mechanical energy (E) is the action of a force (F) through a distance (s) (i.e., E=Fxs). Device constructs which are relatively rigid do not allow substantial energy storage as the forces acting on them do not produce substantial deformations—do not act through substantial distances—within them. For these relatively rigid constructs, energy is transferred rather than stored or absorbed relative to a joint. By contrast, the natural joint is a construct comprised of elements of different compliance characteristics such as bone, cartilage, synovial fluid, muscles, tendons, ligaments, etc. as described above. These dynamic elements include relatively compliant ones (ligaments, tendons, fluid, cartilage) which allow for substantial energy absorption and storage, and relatively stiffer ones (bone) that allow for efficient energy transfer. The cartilage in a joint compresses under applied force and the resultant force displacement product represents the energy absorbed by cartilage. The fluid content of cartilage also acts to stiffen its response to load applied quickly and dampen its response to loads applied slowly. In this way, cartilage acts to absorb and store, as well as to dissipate energy.
With the foregoing applications in mind, it has been found to be necessary to develop effective structure for mounting to body anatomy. Such structure should conform to body anatomy and cooperate with body anatomy to achieve desired load reduction, energy absorption, energy storage, and energy transfer. The structure should also provide a base for attachment of complementary structure across articulating joints.
For these implant structures to function optimally, they must not cause a disturbance to apposing tissue in the body, nor should their function be affected by anatomical tissue and structures impinging on them. Moreover, there is a need to reliably and durably transfer loads across members defining a joint. Such transfer can only be accomplished where the base structure is securely affixed to anatomy. Therefore, what is needed is an approach which addresses both joint movement and varying loads as well as complements underlying anatomy and provides an effective base for connecting an implantable extra-articular assembly.